The Social Taboo of Criticizing Radical Islam

Originally posted by tarichar

The only taboo is generalising an entire religion.... i think its called racism.

No it isn't, it's called bigotry.
Most religions transcend race.

Taboo may be too hard a word for the hesitancy some show toward speaking out or highlighting the negative aspects of Islam. When I think of Taboo, I think of such things as marrying your sister, using the "N" word. Telling someone that their new baby is ugly...ect.

I think that many have been manipulated to believe that to be open minded means to not be able to think critically, or to be able to take a stand on a controversial subject that goes against the popular trend. (insert politically correct)

I remember back when I was in college, my sociology professor , a died in the wool liberal, spoke of the horrors of ethnocentrism and praised multiculturalism. He challenged anyone in class to make the statement that any particular culture was better or superior to another.

He of course held to the notion that they were all just different and than none was in fact superior.

When I asked him if cultures that deny basic human rights should be viewed as equal to Western cultures that have established laws to ensure them, he refused to provide an answer, but I could see the consternation in his face.

He then erupted into a diatribe of examples of injustices in Western Societies, as f that somehow negated or excused the travesties in the cultures that condone the denial of basic human rights.

That seems to be the tact many take. Instead of focusing on the issue at hand, many will bring up the shortcomings of Christianity and its history of violence. To me it is just an attempt to avoid having to take critical look, and forming a bonifide stand on the issue.

Does Neville Chamberlain and his policy of appeasement come to mind? anyone?

reply to post by Freeborn


now that's just pedantic.

Originally posted by tarichar
The only taboo is generalising an entire religion.... i think its called racism. what it has to do with rakes i have no idea.

[edit on 26-2-2008 by tarichar]

I don't know about that. I think our position in history has a bearing on this.
For example, would I be called a racist if I made the statement that the Aztec religion was violent and bloodthirsty? Given that we are not occupying the same time frame in history I doubt that I would be considered a racist and bigot. I could be wrong though if there are any practicing Aztecs out there.

Racism? What race are Muslims? can they be classified as a particular race? I think not.

reply to post by Sparky63


I really do not see any kind of taboo in the negative portrayal of Islam, for example tomorrow the press will be awash with the fact that four men were successfully convicted on terrorist offences within the UK, linked to Islamic extremism. Rightly so.

This idea of a "taboo" is little more than hysteria whipped up to incite a fear of difference (as I have now been rightly corrected, bigotry as opposed to racism). There is a general disproportionate level of attention paid to stories linked to 'Islamic extremism' that does little to serve the public interest. For example the bogus story of a polygamous muslim claiming multiple benefits, bringing up questions of Sharia being a threat to our own secular legal system.

The taboo of not being able to speak out about against islamic extremism is little more than a falsehood within a wider problem of xenophobia.

reply to post by Sparky63


Werent the Aztec's the same people who as part of their religious ceremonies would remove the beating hearts of unwilling victims as part of a sacrifice to appease the gods? I think you would be quite justified in such a statement. The analogy to Islam ignores the fact that as a contemporary religion its stretches across all the continents (ok for the pedants I have no supporting sources for there being muslims on the south pole) of the world as a multifaceted and splintered theology. The Aztecs were confined to a small area of central america.

Originally posted by Sparky63
I remember back when I was in college, my sociology professor , a died in the wool liberal, spoke of the horrors of ethnocentrism and praised multiculturalism. He challenged anyone in class to make the statement that any particular culture was better or superior to another.

I think it's pretty easy to view the extreme behaviours found in some cultures as abhorent - who cannot cringe at the idea of cannibals still acting in New Guinea? But, we must also accept that just a few hundred years ago we were not much better than many of these other cultures, and in time, I would like to think they can extract themselves from their dark-age mentality.

What islam needs is an enlightenment style influence. An awakening of reason against the abhorent extremes of their faith-based theocractic cultures. To some extent, this has happened in some places.

That's not to say we shouldn't poop on the extremes found in these cultures from a very high height. For example, female circumcision is a cultural and religious thing in parts of africa and elsewhere, anyone doing such things in the UK should be brought to face the full force of the law. However, is male circumcision that much better? We accept the fact that for some silly faith-based reason we should allow people to cut off part of the winkies of little boys? But to do it to girls is a no-no? They have both been justified for similar reasons.

So, we can say that we do have superior features in our society at this point, but we were not always so superior, and we still have work to do.

[edit on 26-2-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by tarichar

I really do not see any kind of taboo in the negative portrayal of Islam, for example tomorrow the press will be awash with the fact that four men were successfully convicted on terrorist offences within the UK, linked to Islamic extremism. Rightly so.

No doubt the reporters will state the fact that they were Muslim and extremists.

But will they take the next step and condemn the culture that fosters such beliefs? Will they pinpoint the clerics who taught them this brand of extremism and hatred and hold their feet to the fire? Will other, non Extremist, Muslim Clerics do anything more than simply issue a limp statement about the matter.

Instead of getting at the root cause and taking decisive action to eliminate it, they will continue to avoid the real issues.

reply to post by tarichar


No it's not being pedantic.
It is being accurate.

It is possible to be religiously intolerant without being racist.
Even some of the most radical interpretations of Islam are willing to accept converts from other ethnic groups.

Originally posted by melatonin
I think it's pretty easy to view the extreme behaviours found in some cultures as abhorent - who cannot cringe at the idea of cannibals still acting in New Guinea? But, we must also accept that just a few hundred years ago we were not much better than many of these other cultures, and in time, I would like to think they can extract themselves from their dark-age mentality.

What islam needs is an enlightenment style influence. An awakening of reason against the abhorent extremes of their faith-based theocractic cultures. To some extent, this has happened in some places.

Those are some very good points indeed.
Tradition has a negative influence on progress. and this is where I believe Islam falls short.
For instance Iran's Penal Code; Article 513, states that the punishment for insulting or criticizing, Islam, the Prophet Mohammed, his entire family, or his representatives known as Imams is death by hanging in public.

How can one immersed in this culture or society make progress if they cannot critisize their religion or it's leaders? In order to do so many must flee to Western countries where the impact of their views has little or no effect on their fellows back home.

The clerics teach that the Koran is unchangeable and that the traditions based on the hadiths hold almost as much weight. So in their view there is no problem and no need for change.

First of all, thank you Sparky for your contributions. They certainly seem to verify aspects of the original thread. As promised, here is some evidence from myself.

ANALOGY: FRINGE RADICALS VS. ORGANIZED RETRIBUTION

Harlem Hottie has brought up a good point. The fact an Islamic radical kills an author known for his critical view of Islam is not evidence of a network or conspiracy. As an example we could use an abortion clinic bomber of the Christian faith. Just because an individual commits an atrocity does not mean there is a conspiracy among Christian to bomb abortion clinics.

EVIDENCE OF ORGANIZED RADICAL RETRIBUTION

Now here is an example of large groups of Radical Muslims. Pay close attention to what their signs are saying:





As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. First of all, the message is warning against 'insult' 'slander' and 'mock.' If you dare say something negative against Islam or mock (like the cartoon for example), then you run the chance of having such people not be your greatest fan.

But looking at the photo, we see many protesters. Unless you believe in some united consciousness that would cause such a crowd to gather at a specific time and day with premade signs, it would be safe to say the rally was an organized event and not just a fringe individual. There appears to be an organized movement to silence the critics.

Now, most people will agree that this is stating the obvious. Unless you live under a rock, we know radical Islam lashes out at some of its detractors. Whether they are Muslim or Infidel, woe to those who do not submit. But what about the social pressure to not criticize Islam?

SILENCING CRITICISM OF [RADICAL] ISLAM VIA POLITICS

I think this is similar to what Sparky mentioned but this is interesting:

It didn’t attract much notice, but the General Assembly of the United Nations ended the year by passing a disgusting resolution protecting Islam from criticism of its human rights violations.

Source: Don't Criticize Islam, Says UN

Here we have the UN setting up their own version of the Anti Defamation league, if you will. As pro Israel as I am, I have serious issues with segments of the ADL. I also have issues with the Islamic version.

SILENCING CRITICISM OF [RADICAL] ISLAM VIA THE STIGMA OF INTOLERANCE

An example of another kind. We will use the 'pope incident' as our example as it is the most famous. A quick summary: Pope Benedict quoted a centuries old speech critical of Islam. There was not only backlash by fringe loners (which does not show a conspiracy) but organized groups. Due to the violence and peer pressure, Pope Benedict retracted his statements.

Thousands of Egyptian Muslims staged a massive demonstration in Cairo after Friday prayers to protest Pope Benedict XVI's recent remarks on Islam, the official news agency MENA reported.

Source: Egytpian Muslims Stage Protest Against Pope's Remarks

Now, that was only one demonstration to keep this from becoming too tedious. If you kept up with the news, you would know that there were multiple organized rallies. Pope Benedict did not declare war on Islam or command Christians to start slaughtering Muslims. He quoted a speech of a 14th century emperor but that was enough to start the trouble due to the content and sentiments of the quote.

SILENCING CRITICISM OF [RADICAL] ISLAM VIA EDUCATION

Now the following is interesting. This will involve 'silence of Islamic violence.' This specific example pertains to school textbooks purposely being edited to 'soften' the violence of Islam's history:

For example, I looked at the textbook descriptions of jihad, sharia, Arabic slavery, and the treatment of women, and compared them with what well-respected scholarship said.

I found there were great variations. There were obvious fabrications, whitewash, airbrushing — call it what you will. When I pointed these variations out in the 2003 report Islam in the Textbooks, and explained that it had taken place because CIE had intimidated publishers, then I came under attack.

Silencing Critics of Textbooks Portraying Islam.

For the entire interview, see: HERE.

SILENCING CRITICISM OF [RADICAL] ISLAM VIA MEDIA

Now here is a personal piece of anecdotal evidence. Similar to the previous example of the South Park censorship, a couple of months ago I was watching the history of the Ottoman Empire. It's slant and airbrushed history if favor of Islam was appalling. Here are some of the things the show mentioned:

Christians and Jews were "exempt" from holding jobs, working in government positions, and serving in the military unless they converted to Islam. I wouldn't call this "exempt," I would call this "discrimination."

Christians and Jews were "allowed to pay a special tax." What a privilege! I mean, I've always considered having to pay a tax that no one else did as special treatment.

Christians and Jews "could even wear special clothing identifying themselves as such." This is just about as great as Hitler making the Jews wear a Star of David during WWII.

Christians and Jews were "allowed to live among themselves instead of in the cities." This was forced segregation- not a choice like the documentary made it sound.

It surprised me to say the least.

SIMILAR THOUGHTS IN SILENCING CRITICISM OF [RADICAL] ISLAM

And here is an interesting article that seems to agree with this thread and also provides evidence of it's supposition:

Will the West Clamp Down on Criticism of Islam in Order to "Preserve Peace?"

There has been remarkably little interest shown in these cases by the American media, usually so alert to perceived violations of the right to free speech, and it is perhaps too easy to speculate why the editorial boards of our leading newspapers and magazines have not gotten up in arms over these attacks on their Canadian colleagues. Could it be that they are not as keen on defending our right to speak ill of Islam as they are to defend our right to speak ill of virtually everything else?

The articles mentions the history and evolution of free speech, or lack thereof, in the West and addresses the issue we are discussing here. Is there a bias?

IN CONCLUSION

These are examples of evidence defending my position. There are many more. The point of this thread is not to convince you there is a conspiracy but to get your brains working. Fair enough? I'd say so.

In conclusion, I would say plenty of evidence has been presented in the 15 pages of this thread to get our wheels of thought turning. Again, I'm not here to prove it but to put forth a conspiracy. There certainly seems to be some corroborating evidence. It is not completely basis.

Most threads in the Religious Conspiracy forum would be what Harlem Hottie would call "J'accuse." This thread had certainly concentrated on examples and evidence more than the majority of posts in this forum and evidence has been provided. Anything further would simply be nitpicking. It is time to put our opinions forth and stop skirting the issue. This is a conspiracy theory. If it was a conspiracy fact, you would see me being interviewed on television and radio. That is the definition of a theory: a hypothesis supported with evidence. It's time to get to the topic of discussion now.

[edit on 2/26/2008 by AshleyD]

Heh, ashley, do you think that shows a social taboo? Or does it show a taboo within islam itself?

I think there is a difference. Although, maybe you don't. I could just as easily state there is also a comparable 'social' taboo against criticism of christianity or mockery of your holy dude. Indeed, I could show pictures of christians in the UK picketing and whining about a stage opera calling jesus a little bit gay in 2005, or even the recent boycotting moves against the 'golden compass' film by the Catholic League and others, even though the makers accepted the taboo of criticising faith by diluting the more explicit anti-dogmatic elements.

So, we now have two 'social' taboos. One for criticism/mockery of islam, whereby some muslims throw a wobbler. And another for criticism/mockery of of christianity, whereby some christians throw a wobbler.

Can we see a pattern here at all?

[edit on 26-2-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Heh, ashley, do you think that shows a social taboo? Or does it show a taboo within islam itself?

Mel, I love you to death but it certainly seems you are nitpicking. Much evidence has been presented to show backlash occurs. Social taboo? That is a little more difficult, hence the conspiracy theory. What one would deem 'offensive' would be in the eye of the beholder.

I'm sorry but it is my opinion that it does not take a rocket scientist to see there is a politically correct bias than seems to invisibly label people as intolerant for speaking out against Islam or radical Islam. I have seen some pretty blatant comments just on ATS about it. If you question, attack, or criticize Islam or radical Islam you will be called an intolerant bigot. Are we being programmed to 'mind our manners' and 'respect culture' in spite of what we may think of it?

I'll leave it to the individual to decide. In my opinion, this theory is accurate. Some may disagree. You seem to be one who disagrees and that is totally acceptable. But just looking around and seeing the labels those receive who question or criticize Islam is pretty obvious. From the pundits to the posters on ATS, if you question Islam or speak out against radicalism you better be prepared for ten pages of debate.

source

Now that cartoon is poking fun of the "social" double standard.

Another example of what happens in reality if you criticize Islam...

French critic of Islam flees threats

PARIS: A public high school philosophy teacher and writer who attacked the Prophet Muhammad and Islam in a newspaper commentary has gone into hiding under police protection after receiving a series of death threats, including one diffused on a radical Islamist online forum.

International Herald Tribune

Here is a fun analogy for everyone:



We could reasonably say 99.9% of the population would describe the image on the left as a white rectangle. It is what it is and it needs no interpretation. So is the same with the violent backlash of Islamic criticism or mockery. We know it exists. To deny such a thing, would be like saying the rectangle is red.

On the other hand, the image on the right is going to be the same image shown to everyone but everyone is going to see it in a different way. Some may think it is a mask. Some may think it is an animal skull. Some may think it is a pelvic bone. How can this be? We're all looking at the same image.

So is the same with the social taboo aspect. We're all looking at the same 'image' [read: evidence]. Some will see those being labeled 'bigots' for criticizing radical Islam as being an unfair label. Some will think it is unfair but will justify it because one could also be accused of being labeled a bigot for speaking out against another religion. Some will also see nothing at all but a blob of ink on a sheet of paper and that no conspiracy exists.

[edit on 2/26/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
Mel, I love you to death but it certainly seems you are nitpicking. Much evidence has been presented to show backlash occurs. Social taboo? That is a little more difficult, hence the conspiracy theory. What one would deem 'offensive' would be in the eye of the beholder.

I'm not really sure I am nitpicking though, ash. As you said earlier, hypotheses require evidence. I think to show a social taboo specifically for radical islam, you'd have to show evidence that this is widespread throughout society (our society).

For example, if the hypothesis was 'there is a social taboo against being critical of islam (taking the radical bit out) in islamic countries', I think we could easily show it to be correct.

Alternatively, if we said 'there is a muslim taboo for being critical of islam', then again, I think the evidence bears this out - it's all over this thread, muslims get noughty when you mock little Mo'. But if we are talking about a social taboo, we need to show it extends well beyond muslims, otherwise it is better described as being a muslim taboo. Same for the example of a christian taboo for being critical of christianity.

So, now we have two groups of faithful who both don't like criticism of the major features of their faith. So, where is this going really?

Standing back and being objective, wouldn't the logical inference be 'people of faith have a taboo against criticism of their faith'? Now, if we take in all the examples of blasphemy laws, UN human rights, EU human rights, I think we could safely extend this to:

There is a social taboo against criticism of religions and faith.

Is that cool? Or not? In fact, IMHO, I think we can more easily criticise the radical elements of faith than we can the more moderate parts. As an atheist, it's so obvious, I can get involved in these threads and not even worry about my negative view of religion, we're all friends, me, Xians, and many others - none of us like really like islam.

I'm sorry but it is my opinion that it does not take a rocket scientist to see there is a politically correct bias than seems to invisibly label people as intolerant for speaking out against Islam or radical Islam. I have seen some pretty blatant comments just on ATS about it. If you question, attack, or criticize Islam or radical Islam you will be called an intolerant bigot. Are we being programmed to 'mind our manners' and 'respect culture' in spite of what we may think of it?

I think it depends how we go about these things. I don't think you have come across as bigoted to me. But I can show what I'm talking about here:

This thread is about a social taboo for criticism of radical islam. Now earlier, when I mentioned the presence of a social taboo against criticising faith full stop, what happened? You come back with the question of whether it is socially ignorant to criticise religion. So what happened there?

Essentially, the category of religion is a high level category (superordinate) that includes Islam, Buddhism, Christianity etc etc. It also includes your faith. Thus, now my question is being critical of your faith, therefore the question isn't the social taboo in your mind, it's whether people are socially ignorant to criticise relgion (which includes your faith, in essence, a part of you).

However, the lower level category(subordinate) of radical islam, and even islam, doesn't include you. So asking 'social taboo' is cool. Because the taboo is a problem, as you think we should be criticising them (as I said earlier, I'm sure much of this is entirely uncontrolled, just a consequence of your worldview).

Thus, criticising a taboo that might stop us criticising islam is cool. Criticising a taboo that stops people criticising religion/faith per se is not cool, because that now includes criticism of you and yours.

So, what I see here, is that this is better seen as a social taboo against criticism of religion and faith. Muslims don't like their faith being criticised, and neither do Xians. Of course, one group are a bit more extreme in how they act on this.

I think you raised an interesting question. But if you haven't noticed what has happened in this thread, then, oh well. In a thread asking about a social taboo against criticising radical islam, we've had people posting about one shia dude stating beastiality is cool. Many have said we can criticise away - I have (I even posted the Theo van Gogh stuff for you), you have, the person posting about beastiality did. But there is a big element of vilification of islam per se here as well, not just discussion of whether there is a taboo. I can see it, and I'm no friend of islam, radical or not - thus, it doesn't even bother me, heh. But I also see elements of hypocrisy.

It's what happens to these sort of threads all the time. It's like if I posted a thread stating the reality that if I criticise Israel, there's a bloody good chance I'll be called anti-semitic, but the thread will also attract anti-semites. It goes without saying, I would accept it, they do exist. Indeed, rather than some taboo, the embarrassment of bringing these people from under their rocks would probably stop me posting it, heh.

From the pundits to the posters on ATS, if you question Islam or speak out against radicalism you better be prepared for ten pages of debate.

Well, it is a discussion site, so debates are known to happen on occasion. One of the biggest jokes in this thread is where people have basically used people being critical of the thesis as actual evidence for the thesis. That's a logical absurdity.

Thus, if everyone agrees - then there is a conspiracy underpinning a social taboo against criticising radical islam.

If people disagree - then this is evidence of a social taboo against criticising radical islam.

Absurd.

[edit on 26-2-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
I'm not really sure I am nitpicking though, ash. As you said earlier, hypotheses require evidence.

I need to get going and will respond to the rest later but one place to start is this thread. Go back and read some of the things being said to those believing there is a conspiracy. The terms ignorant, bigot, racist, and everything else under the sun was thrown our way. If you bring up a topic concerning Islam with even a hint of a critical view, sit back and watch the insults fly. It's as if we're supposed to be embarrassed into silence because no one wants to be labeled a bigot or intolerant.

As for society, there have been many cases of outspoken figures having to retract their sentiments and make public apologies for offending [radical] Islam. The accusations again start to fly of intolerance and bigotry. The offending party is left soiling themselves in embarrassment and apologies in the name of political correctness.

In that ink blot I see Muhammad accepting Jesus as his personal savior.

I guess we all do see different things huh?

Here's an interesting piece:

CRITICIZING ISLAM ON THE AIRWAVES
By Michelle Malkin • July 29, 2005 10:58 AM


Conservative radio talk show host and NRO contributor Michael Graham has been suspended from WMAL-AM without pay in Washington, D.C., for bluntly challenging Islam last week on air and this week in a column.

For the record, I do not consider all Muslims terrorists and would not call
Islam a “terror organization.” But in his own clumsy way, Graham (like Tom Tancredo before him) raises fundamental issues that need to be tackled head on, and he is certainly not alone in raising them.

source

Ok so he got fired for calling Islam a "terror organization":

I take no pleasure in saying it. It pains me to think it. I could very well lose my job in talk radio over admitting it. But it is the plain truth:

Islam is a terror organization.

At first the station said it had no intentions of even reprimanding him:

“Remember that this is talk radio,” Bloomquist added. “We don’t do the dainty minuet of the newspaper editorial page. It’s not ‘Washington Week in Review.’ It depends on pungent statements to drive it. Michael is rattling the cage. It’s designed to start and further a conversation, and it has certainly done that.”

Jewish World Review

Then came massive pressure came from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

No machete necessary...

Originally posted by AshleyD
I need to get going and will respond to the rest later but one place to start is this thread. Go back and read some of the things being said to those believing there is a conspiracy. The terms ignorant, bigot, racist, and everything else under the sun was thrown our way.

And I'm sure some of those terms hit a justified target. Many of the posts in this thread have been of the sort 'islam is teh sux0rz', rather than even touching on the real subject matter. And others just saying 'yeah, so true ash, u da dudette'.

When evidence was asked for the best was a few muslims being radical, which is like finding that bears poop in the woods. And a news item which someone thought wasn't correct. And between that, lots of cheerleading and griping.

And now the new evidence is some people calling others bigots, which was ultimately a consequence of the choice of website used to support the OP.

Ai.

NEWSFLASH: new evidence shows some right-wing nutter was reprimanded for calling the whole of islam a terrorist organisation, heh. Now, I'm not sure what you want to do with that one. Quite the generalisation. Indeed, we might even want to apply the bigot label here.

[edit on 26-2-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by AshleyD


YES Muslims radicals are very bad people(thanks for telling us).Your point has been proven right Well Done (A Gold Medal from me)

In all your threads you only repeat 2 things:
First you talk about how blood thirsty these radicals are.
Second you moun like a little girl about people who don't agree with you.

Can we pleae move forward with something new because i am bored reading the same thing again and again with a different twist.